In re Marvin R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marvin R.

253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 679 (In re Marvin R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Marvin R., 253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about March 11, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the second degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[680]*680The ministerial violation of Family Court Act § 340.2 (1) which occurred here did not interfere with the general rule of judicial continuity established by that section, and did not render the written Order of Fact-Finding After Hearing ineffective, since the written order did not deviate from the oral determination rendered at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing by the Judge who had presided throughout the hearing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about March 11, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the second degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[680]*680The ministerial violation of Family Court Act § 340.2 (1) which occurred here did not interfere with the general rule of judicial continuity established by that section, and did not render the written Order of Fact-Finding After Hearing ineffective, since the written order did not deviate from the oral determination rendered at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing by the Judge who had presided throughout the hearing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marvin-r-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack